Discussion for article #243977
Uh-oh. Thatâs a nice little world war youâre dragging us into, there. How on earth is that supposed to work? Havenât we had enough of thinking we can just whip up a quick regime change without any repercussions?
4 Likes
Getting rid of Assad is a strategic outcome. Getting âmore buy inâ from Syrian rebel groups to fight ISIS are tactical steps to reach another hopefully strategic outcome of destroying ISIS. Yet there are forces loyal to the Assad-led Baath regime who are also fighting ISIS - more numerously and more effectively than the anti-Assad rebel groups. Hillary (and the advice she is getting) is wrong. ISIS is a regional threat, but Assad is not.
1 Like
Assad is not a threat to the United States.
I think what sheâs doing here is playing to the âAssad is a horridly cruel dictatorâ crowd. Which of course he is, but that was part of the ploy to whip Americans into a war fever that only removing Saddam Hussein could cure. Morally speaking, removing Assad is the right thing to do. As a practical matter, itâs likely another quagmire that will drain our blood and resources.
I feel like no matter what course is taken, something is going to go terribly wrong.
yeah, because the regime changes the u.s. has conducted have all been so fucking successful. she must be so pissed with kerry/obama right now and their decision to work with russia; instead of provoking the wars she clearly wants to conduct.
2 Likes
This is precisely why Obamaâs strategy, while it looks âditheringâ and âweakâ, is the right way to continue. Contain ISIS as a statelet, prevent major atrocities, but let the situation play out among the people who actually have a stake in it.
In my view, the best possible scenario would be where Assad himself dies in some way, and his replacement as leader of the âgovernment forcesâ is both more open to reconciliation and more acceptable to other factions. Whether it leads to reunification or de facto partition, that seems to be the only thing that would allow the groups to come to a political solution and thereby unite to expel ISIS (barring some major, unforeseeable change in the military situation).
Your best possible scenario is essentially what she is talking about, just without Assad necessarily dying.
And I agree with her general approach. Focus the military strategy upon defeating ISIS, and focus the political/democracy strategy on ending the civil war with Assad abdicating. That is also actually the path that the world players seem to be on at the moment, too.
The point a lot of people, including both Sanders and OâMalley is missing, is you donât have to âfightâ both Assad and ISISâŚAssad can be taken out diplomatically now.
To the other point that OâMalley was trying to make,and Sanders as well (but doing a much worse job), regarding Libya and regime change isâŚwe didnât take out Quadafi. Nor did the Europeans or even other Arab countries. The revolution that was already underway took him out and killed him. There was basically two outcomes: Either was stand by and watch Quadafi execute tens of thousands of his people as he shut down the warâŚprobably over many years, possibly even till today, or we backed the rebels and Quadafi is overthrown. The Benghazi story that everyone would be talking about if the world had stood aside would have been a bloody massacre of Libyans (he was on the verge of doing exactly that when we and our allies started the air intervention).
Its a fallacy to act like we were the ones who initiated the conflict, in order to âtopple a regimeâ. The screw up was in the handling of Libya after his overthrowâŚand the Libyans have as much to do with that as we do. There is only so much aid you can provide people who donât want it.
3 Likes
I like that in a political party.
I think both Ms. Clinton and Mr. Sanders presented two good perspectives. I think there are others. The missing question in the entire Issue thatâs fueling anti-Muslim sentiment is why? Iraq, Iran, Syria, Assad, AfghanistanâŚ
Itâs about the oil.
Why should we give a damn? Even if we should give a damn, why does any of the Democratâs sensible tactics or the Republicanâs nonsense nuke-bluster do anything to help secure the oil supply?
Well, when she (and others) talk about âdefeat[ing] Assadâ, I take it to mean militarily defeating the entire regime and having the entire structure replaced by a coalition of the rebel groups. Iâm referring to just him personally, with someone from his government - preferably someone less involved in the atrocities of the war, if thereâs anyone left - taking over.
And yes, everyone seems to have forgotten how the Libyan war began and went on (it should be added - the Europeans were the ones who led the way and were more gung-ho about the air campaign). Unfortunately it seems that virtually everyone, left and right, now thinks that from the start it was a CIA-led effort to overthrow Qaddafi.
1 Like
That isnât what she is talking about, however. She is talking about the peace talk track to end the civil war, (which most people, apparently even including RussiaâŚwhich is what makes it such a game changer now) which will most likely include Assad abdicating and leaving the country.
The hints that the Russians are open to that idea, as well as the unanimous agreement by the Security Council to focus on ISIS and the announcement by Saudi Arabia and 34 other Arab countries to do the same thingâŚis what she is talking about this being such a crucial moment.
And yes, Trumpâs rhetoric is very detrimental to those efforts on both fronts.
1 Like
The âcoalitionâ must defeat ISIL. Thatâs more accurate is it not? The US isnât in this alone, shouldnât be and doesnât really need to be.
In every effort that we make to do some good, we also do small amounts of harm and there are repercussions. This is big Q quagmire territory and from al Qaeda to ISIL to whatever is next, we could be in the terrorist killing business for a long time if not forever.
For every offensive, the blowback needs to be considered long and hard. (that sounds sort of nasty actually)
"The reason we are in the mess we are in ... is because of Assad," Clinton said.
What? A new nickname? The media always used to call him Dubya.